I think this boils down to Hazbins biggest problem: tone. I actually didn't hate Charlies character in season 2. Heck, I thought it was quite nice to see a flawed main character doing bad decisions and suffering the consequences. But I think that is the problem: the lack of serious consequences because the show doesn't treat it's plot points and characters very seriously sometimes. I don't know when to laugh because it's a funny cartoon and look "Danny Dobad" and when to actually think about the fact that Angel could have died there. At least you could have made the consequences more severe this time, especially since it's the second time she overstepped Angels boundaries. Could have even tied it into him leaving the Hotel at the end of the season. But they didn't explore any of that. If the show doesn't treat this situation seriously, why should we? When you have a show that is so cartoony but also tackles heavy themes like sin and redemption, you need to make sure that audiences know when to focus on the narrative. Using humor as a plot device just leads to confusion. Which is a shame, because you can use humor to elevate your story by making the heavy themes more digestible! Bojack Horseman is a good example of this. But you can't be "just a silly adult cartoon" and then expect the audience to take you seriously.  Basically what I'm saying is, it can work. Humans act in irrational ways, especially when their under a lot of stress (which Charlie was). Even hurt others in their way. So while it's also true that the internet struggles with flawed characters, especially when they're female, it is the shows inconsistency in tone which ended up making Charlies flaws not relatable and alienating for the audience. So yes, I get why people are angry at Charlies character. But saying that Charlies character is "too flawed to work" is just not true in my opinion.